In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Saturated Fat | Main | Elsewhere »

November 09, 2007

DVD Journal: "Spider-Man 3"

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

"Spider-Man 3" is the kind of calamitous misfire that makes you gasp, "What on earth were they thinking?" -- except that in this case it's all too clear what they were thinking: epic solemnity with a message, reluctantly enlivened with occasional special-effects firestorms. Say farewell to your hopes for an evening's fun entertainment and brace yourself instead for themes and lessons; unresonant villains; 134 plot turns too many; a complete absence of subtext; an almost two-and-a-half-hour running time ... Though they do come up with some beautiful and / or amazing special effects, the talented Sam Raimi and his team couldn't have done a better job of killing off my interest in their successful movie franchise if they'd tried. The love-interest character -- Mary Jane, played by Kirsten Dunst -- suffers worst. She comes across as a tedious, high-maintenance pain who's sooooooo not worth the effort.



posted by Michael at November 9, 2007


Kirsten Dunst -- suffers worst. She comes across as a tedious, high-maintenance pain who's sooooooo not worth the effort.

a) she didn't suffer the worst, we did for watching it. b) I don't think she was acting as that's how she comes across in every movie I've seen her in. c) from the very beginning she was the very worst choice for Mary Jane. Mary Jane is a smokin'-hot redhead, not a color-treated, puppy-faced, stick figure who I'd like to see try to act her way out of a plastic bag...because I know it would be the last time I'd have to see her try to act.

Not that I'm bitterly disappointed or anything. :)

Posted by: Upstate Guy on November 9, 2007 9:13 AM

i haven't even seen it yet cause of reviews like this and i liked the first 2. i loved reading the comics when i was a kid so it was cool to see all that history crammed into the first film.

Posted by: t.j. on November 9, 2007 9:45 AM

I found the scene when Sandman is re-forming for the first time very moving and poetic.

Posted by: Tim R. Mortiss on November 9, 2007 10:38 AM

Worst musical I saw all year.

Seriously, what was with all the song-and/or-dance numbers? And I'm probably considered a "sensitive" guy, but even *I* was embarrassed by all the men crying with other men in that movie. This is still the superhero genre, isn't it?

Tim: You are right. That scene was the best in the film and very, very effective.

Posted by: Chris Floyd on November 9, 2007 10:55 AM

Can't Dunst get her teeth fixed? Jeez, she's a multimillionaire by now, what's the problem?

Posted by: ricpic on November 9, 2007 11:03 AM

The landlord's daughter is much hotter and sweeter than Mary Jane.

Posted by: PA on November 9, 2007 11:19 AM

yeah, i concur about dunst. i thing michael just likes her or something. i used to too but she gets on my nerves sometimes nowadays when she says things like "i'll only take my clothes off for almodovar" to michel gondry. i dunno...but she was totally miscast as maryjane. mary jane watson, when i saw her in comics as a kid, a busty hot firecracker but with some vulnerability. she was drawn much like how many comic book artists draw women but that's what her character was and that's not what kirsten dunst is. when she calls peter parker "tiger" in the movies, it doesn't feel natural to the way she talks or how i imagine maryjane saying it in the comics when a kid. but i could get past that and enjoy the first 2 films for what they were when i saw them in theaters.

Posted by: t.j. on November 9, 2007 12:43 PM

I was in college during the early years of Stan Lee's Spiderman comic, and was a huge fan. (Remember the May 1971 issue, the one that didn't get the CCA Seal of Approval because it was about drugs?) But I haven't seen any of the three movies. Maybe I was afraid of being disappointed.

Posted by: Lester Hunt on November 10, 2007 11:31 AM

The first 30% or so of the movie wasn't too bad. The rest was a debacle.

Posted by: Sideways on November 12, 2007 6:05 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?